Who says I believe in a literal resurrection of Christ? That I grew up in a Dutch Reformed household does not automatically imply I'm still a believer, now does it? For a so-called rationalist you do make strange leaps of logic.
Nativity scenes date back to the 13th century. I think you're overestimating their influence. Also how literal they should be taken, as the whole manger bit is only mentioned in the Gospel of Luke. The Church just liked the display, and in fact Francis of Assisi had pragmatic (read P.R.) reasons to launch the idea in the first place.
Geocentrism is old hat. The Church had no problems with it, as it was rapidly becoming the scientific consensus at the time of the Galileo trial. Galileo got in hot water over his methodology and the political way he tried to defend it. Again, we have Catholic doctrine from that time and even earlier outright stating that observation of the world is superior to Scripture in revealing Creation to Man. And with fits and starts, the Catholic Church and mainstream Protestantism followed secular science in its explanation of the world. Religious authorities were certainly not more at odds with science than other scientists or secular authorities, at least until the rise of the more fundamentalist sects in the 19th century.
My faith is not superior. My knowledge of history and theology is however far superior than yours.
[The Bible] is written as an account of actual facts, that really happened in the real world. And this is how it was taught for many, many centuries.
And this is what makes me really get fed up with religion stories on Slashdot: that the immature atheists hanging out here can't even get their basic facts right.
The notion of the Bible as an account of facts was dismissed by Augustine. Go look up how 'many, many centuries' ago that was. Biblical literalism is a particular abberation that grew out of the Protestant doctrine of 'sola scriptura', at which time the Bible had been acknowledge as containing symbolical literature for a millenium. Not to mention that the literalism you refer to is a particularly American abberation, that most Old World Protestants wouldn't put up with.
So shut the fuck up until you've actually looked at the facts.
Since in that year the Apple fanbois haven't managed to grow a sense of iHumour yet, and they keep reacting hysterically to that old joke, why not keep it?
Well, there is an indication that all that cordite rots the brain, yes.
In other words, learn to fucking read what was written, not what the NRA talking points tell you what to expect, you fucking moron. I explicitly said nothing of the sort.
I have recently worked through a license assessment with Microsoft, and I can confirm that the company line is that you need an Office licence for every client device accessing office.
Even if it is the same user accessing Office from their office workstation or from home using the company VPN, each device they use to access the server hosting Office counts as a seat for licensing.
What makes this confusing is that host access using RDP can be licensed on a per-user basis.
All your arguments boil down to aesthetics. There is nothing wrong with that, just say you dislike the look of Perl code and be done with that.
The minute you start looking for technical excuses though, is the moment your argument falls through. Really, complaining about sigils in Perl, and then comparing against Lisp with its masses of parentheses and use of sigils to, among others, indicate function objects? Not to mention all the special globals you can set in the Lisp interpreter?
The only real technical point I am willing to give you is the use of references in data structures. There is an inherent ugliness in using them, and a possibility for confusion especially with arrays.
What's wrong with the proposed solutions? If you want to do serious programming and you don't understand how closures work, you have no business behind a keyboard.
About the worst I can say is that the sigils and braces make the Perl code look ugly. I can live with that.
Most of what the consumer sees comes from the 8-bit world of the Apple II and CP/M. That the Mac, and later Windows put a GUI on it is mere refinement, but accessible business computing using spreadsheets and word processors were old hat by that time.
That's 'Recipient Filtering' you link to. I understood that as of Exchange 2007 (plus some SP, possibly), if you turn on email lookups in AD, it defaults to reject if the user is not found.
I only got to work with Exchange once removed, as I had to advise our customers what to do to not backscatter, so if I am wrong, then I am wrong.
Of course in that case Barracuda is as bad as Microsoft, which is hardly an improvement.
Why would you automatically assume the difference in fraudulent behaviour is tied to a biological mechanism? For sure testosterone has an influence on behaviour, but why implictly discount 'boys will be boys' and the 'old boys network'?
So how do property rights and trespass protect one's rights without restricting another's? If you have food, and I'm starving, your property right infringes in my right to live.
But given that you won't want to address that, and that you don't even know what an 'ad hominem' really is (except that it sounds important and mean), I can conclude that you're one of the libertards, for whom 'my property' is everything, and the rest of the world can go hang, even if they ask the rest of the world to pay taxes for the police to protect said property.
Can you please prove that you actually have thought, instead of repeating the party line? Property rights and trespass restrict other people's rights. This is a paradox you can't solve except by axiomatically deciding one set of rights is worth more than another, but this is an axiom, not a self-evident truth.
You still have not addressed that. And people who take this stance without taking the time to actually think about this issue I do label extreme libertarians, I thought that much was obvious from the context of my original post. Then again, seeing as that you appear to have trouble grasping the nature of rights and how they interact, perhaps I should have used smaller words.
And instead of shouting empty phrases at me, you'd do better to actually show you think.
Again, the concept of individual rights has an inherent paradox in it: if your rights infringe on another's, you will find them restricted. Extreme Libertarians refuse to engage in a sensible discussion on how to solve this in practice, instead contenting themselves with repeating mantra's such as "the market will sort it out" or "property rights".
And you yourself mislabel anarchy. Anarchy is the non-existence of the State, but Anarchist theory is at least willing to look the paradox of counteracting rights straight in the eye.
Still the paradox remains: the moment you sue someone for trespass, you use the power of the State to restrict their rights.
Libertarianism in its extreme preaches a paradoxical position: individual rights reign supreme until something comes along that makes it allright to restrict them.
What people confuse is that by going into an extreme low-calorie diet, the rate at which you burn calories goes down: your body lowers the base metabolism to save calories.
This, however, is emphatically not the same as not burning calories at all. You are right, not eating or eating very little is a definite way to lose weight.
The problem comes with adjusting your diet and lifestyle after you hit your target weight. If you don't adjust your lifestyle and return to your previous diet, all that happens is that your base metabolism will go up, and the excess calories will not be burnt but stored as fat again. This is the cause of the infamous bounceback after a diet.
Doesn't matter. The minute you accept that the free expression of one's rights may violate another's rights is the moment you accept that there is a ground to force one of the two participants to give up their rights.
As grandparent pointed out, the very basis of Libertarianism is paradoxical, which is why extreme Libertarians always sound like nuts.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says I believe in a literal resurrection of Christ? That I grew up in a Dutch Reformed household does not automatically imply I'm still a believer, now does it? For a so-called rationalist you do make strange leaps of logic.
Nativity scenes date back to the 13th century. I think you're overestimating their influence. Also how literal they should be taken, as the whole manger bit is only mentioned in the Gospel of Luke. The Church just liked the display, and in fact Francis of Assisi had pragmatic (read P.R.) reasons to launch the idea in the first place.
Geocentrism is old hat. The Church had no problems with it, as it was rapidly becoming the scientific consensus at the time of the Galileo trial. Galileo got in hot water over his methodology and the political way he tried to defend it. Again, we have Catholic doctrine from that time and even earlier outright stating that observation of the world is superior to Scripture in revealing Creation to Man. And with fits and starts, the Catholic Church and mainstream Protestantism followed secular science in its explanation of the world. Religious authorities were certainly not more at odds with science than other scientists or secular authorities, at least until the rise of the more fundamentalist sects in the 19th century.
My faith is not superior. My knowledge of history and theology is however far superior than yours.
Irrelevant to the stunning display of ignorance I was answering.
And this is what makes me really get fed up with religion stories on Slashdot: that the immature atheists hanging out here can't even get their basic facts right.
The notion of the Bible as an account of facts was dismissed by Augustine. Go look up how 'many, many centuries' ago that was. Biblical literalism is a particular abberation that grew out of the Protestant doctrine of 'sola scriptura', at which time the Bible had been acknowledge as containing symbolical literature for a millenium. Not to mention that the literalism you refer to is a particularly American abberation, that most Old World Protestants wouldn't put up with.
So shut the fuck up until you've actually looked at the facts.
Since in that year the Apple fanbois haven't managed to grow a sense of iHumour yet, and they keep reacting hysterically to that old joke, why not keep it?
Well, there is an indication that all that cordite rots the brain, yes.
In other words, learn to fucking read what was written, not what the NRA talking points tell you what to expect, you fucking moron. I explicitly said nothing of the sort.
And there's a reason why 'tu quoque' is a lousy argument.
It's shady because the condition of the licensing is to only show the good uses of a morally neutral tool.
In other words, the condition of the licensing is to use the game as a propaganda tool.
Why, yes, it was.
Why do you think the US having a barbaric law enforcement culture excuses anyone else from their bad behaviour?
He used blackmail to force women to pose nude for him. That's sexual assault, not just 'a bit of embarrassment'.
Naaah, he's probably called Larry.
I have recently worked through a license assessment with Microsoft, and I can confirm that the company line is that you need an Office licence for every client device accessing office.
Even if it is the same user accessing Office from their office workstation or from home using the company VPN, each device they use to access the server hosting Office counts as a seat for licensing.
What makes this confusing is that host access using RDP can be licensed on a per-user basis.
All your arguments boil down to aesthetics. There is nothing wrong with that, just say you dislike the look of Perl code and be done with that.
The minute you start looking for technical excuses though, is the moment your argument falls through. Really, complaining about sigils in Perl, and then comparing against Lisp with its masses of parentheses and use of sigils to, among others, indicate function objects? Not to mention all the special globals you can set in the Lisp interpreter?
The only real technical point I am willing to give you is the use of references in data structures. There is an inherent ugliness in using them, and a possibility for confusion especially with arrays.
What's wrong with the proposed solutions? If you want to do serious programming and you don't understand how closures work, you have no business behind a keyboard.
About the worst I can say is that the sigils and braces make the Perl code look ugly. I can live with that.
Most of what the consumer sees comes from the 8-bit world of the Apple II and CP/M. That the Mac, and later Windows put a GUI on it is mere refinement, but accessible business computing using spreadsheets and word processors were old hat by that time.
Shorter: get off my lawn.
Wait, you're expecting common decency from a News Corp subsidiary?
That's 'Recipient Filtering' you link to. I understood that as of Exchange 2007 (plus some SP, possibly), if you turn on email lookups in AD, it defaults to reject if the user is not found.
I only got to work with Exchange once removed, as I had to advise our customers what to do to not backscatter, so if I am wrong, then I am wrong.
Of course in that case Barracuda is as bad as Microsoft, which is hardly an improvement.
This is Barracuda, who were still doing accept-then-bounce when even Microsoft had changed that to no longer being the default in Exchange.
Why would you automatically assume the difference in fraudulent behaviour is tied to a biological mechanism? For sure testosterone has an influence on behaviour, but why implictly discount 'boys will be boys' and the 'old boys network'?
Mart
So how do property rights and trespass protect one's rights without restricting another's? If you have food, and I'm starving, your property right infringes in my right to live.
But given that you won't want to address that, and that you don't even know what an 'ad hominem' really is (except that it sounds important and mean), I can conclude that you're one of the libertards, for whom 'my property' is everything, and the rest of the world can go hang, even if they ask the rest of the world to pay taxes for the police to protect said property.
Can you please prove that you actually have thought, instead of repeating the party line? Property rights and trespass restrict other people's rights. This is a paradox you can't solve except by axiomatically deciding one set of rights is worth more than another, but this is an axiom, not a self-evident truth.
You still have not addressed that. And people who take this stance without taking the time to actually think about this issue I do label extreme libertarians, I thought that much was obvious from the context of my original post. Then again, seeing as that you appear to have trouble grasping the nature of rights and how they interact, perhaps I should have used smaller words.
Wikipedia
And do note that that particular paragraph carries citations.
And instead of shouting empty phrases at me, you'd do better to actually show you think.
Again, the concept of individual rights has an inherent paradox in it: if your rights infringe on another's, you will find them restricted. Extreme Libertarians refuse to engage in a sensible discussion on how to solve this in practice, instead contenting themselves with repeating mantra's such as "the market will sort it out" or "property rights".
And you yourself mislabel anarchy. Anarchy is the non-existence of the State, but Anarchist theory is at least willing to look the paradox of counteracting rights straight in the eye.
Still the paradox remains: the moment you sue someone for trespass, you use the power of the State to restrict their rights.
Libertarianism in its extreme preaches a paradoxical position: individual rights reign supreme until something comes along that makes it allright to restrict them.
What people confuse is that by going into an extreme low-calorie diet, the rate at which you burn calories goes down: your body lowers the base metabolism to save calories.
This, however, is emphatically not the same as not burning calories at all. You are right, not eating or eating very little is a definite way to lose weight.
The problem comes with adjusting your diet and lifestyle after you hit your target weight. If you don't adjust your lifestyle and return to your previous diet, all that happens is that your base metabolism will go up, and the excess calories will not be burnt but stored as fat again. This is the cause of the infamous bounceback after a diet.
Doesn't matter. The minute you accept that the free expression of one's rights may violate another's rights is the moment you accept that there is a ground to force one of the two participants to give up their rights.
As grandparent pointed out, the very basis of Libertarianism is paradoxical, which is why extreme Libertarians always sound like nuts.